1415: Henry V's Year of Glory

Home > Other > 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory > Page 68
1415: Henry V's Year of Glory Page 68

by Mortimer, Ian


  2. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 28–34.

  3. These payments all appear under today’s date in the Issue Roll, E 403/621.

  4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 238.

  5. CPR, p. 343.

  6. CCR, p. 211.

  7. CPR, p. 320.

  8. CPR, p. 346.

  9. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 35–6.

  10. CPR, p. 321.

  11. CPR, p. 343. For the first case see 22 January.

  12. CPR, p. 343.

  13. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 240.

  14. Foedera, ix, p. 239.

  15. CPR, p. 308.

  16. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 142; Foedera, ix, pp. 239–40.

  17. CPR, pp. 344–5.

  18. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 34–5.

  19. E 101/406/21 fol. 19r.

  20. Foedera, ix, pp. 240–1.

  21. Foedera, ix, p. 241. Barker suggests the recipient was the mayor of London. See Barker, Agincourt, p. 109.

  22. See Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 483. Wylie infers the destination was Holywell from the chronicle of Usk, which mentions Henry going on pilgrimages prior to 16 June. Usk was referring only to offerings at London churches immediately before that date (Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, pp. 254–5). The other evidence for the pilgrimage at this time is the account of the Teutonic envoys; but Wylie mistakes the timing of this pilgrimage. As he states on p. 495, it was shortly before the second interview with the envoys – so after they had been in the country for a full month. As they had left Marienburg on 27 March it can hardly be credited that they had been in the country for a full month by 12 May.

  23. Foedera, ix, p. 243 includes a document supposedly attested by the king on the 11th. It is possible that this was in his absence; however the minutes of the council meeting on the 15th specifically state that the king was present. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 159.

  24. Gesta, p. 17, n. 3; Jacob, Chichele, p. 35.

  25. CPR, p. 345; Kate Parker, ‘Politics and Patronage in Lynn 1399–1416’, in Dodd and Biggs (eds), Rebellion and Survival, pp. 210–27.

  26. Actes Royaux des archives de l’Hérault …, vol 1 (1980), p. 209.

  27. Warwick had been at Bruges on 1 May (Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 455) and returned to London on 11 May (E 101/321/27). Hungerford returned to London on 10 May (E 101/321/28).

  28. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 495.

  29. Henry Percy was born on 3 February 1393 (CP, ix, p. 715) or 1394 (Wylie, Henry V, p. 515, n. 3). Note that Rymer was wrong in placing Percy’s petition for his restoration here under 1415. That document is an exemplification, drawn up on 11 May 1416, of Henry’s decision on the first day of the parliament of 1416 (16 March), in response to Percy’s petition to that parliament. See Foedera, ix, pp. 242–3.

  30. Foedera, ix, p. 244.

  31. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 242–4.

  32. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 123–7.

  33. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 159. It is not clear why Breton ships were classed along with French and Scottish, as the duke of Brittany had a treaty with Henry, as did the duke of Burgundy, who was lord of Flanders.

  34. CPR, p. 327.

  35. CPR, p. 324. It is worth noting that Coventry and Lichfield was still described as sede vacante on 8 May. See Foedera, ix, p. 256.

  36. CP, viii, p. 451. He was to take one banneret, three knights, fifty-five men-at-arms and 160 mounted archers.

  37. CPR, p. 339.

  38. Wylie, i, p. 328; Curry, p.67.

  39. Foedera, ix, pp. 248–9. The English calendar entry CPR, p. 325 is very brief on this matter, and contracted to the point of being misleading.

  40. CPR, p. 325.

  41. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 479.

  42. Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 346; when the time came to sail, he had thirty-five men-at-arms and 96 archers.

  43. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 130.

  44. All of these payments are from the Issue Roll, E 403/621, under 18 May.

  45. Issues, p. 341; the description of the tabernacle appears in Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 14.

  46. E 403/621 under 18 May.

  47. E 101/406/21 fols 7r, 19v.

  48. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 36.

  49. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 222.

  50. E 403/621 under 20 May.

  51. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 162–4.

  52. CPR, p. 348.

  53. E 403/621 under 18 May.

  54. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 165–6.

  55. CPR, p. 337.

  56. Foedera, ix, p. 250; CCR, p. 212.

  57. SC 8/332/15714 (petition); CPR, p. 361 (grant). A close letter was sent to Henry Kays on 1 June ordering him to deliver the patent letter to Thresk. See CCR, p. 217.

  58. CPR, p. 327.

  59. Also on 26 May Henry relaxed the restrictions on the export of smelted tin. In the parliament of November 1414 the mayor of Calais had written petitioning the king to force all wool, hides, lead and tin to be exported via the Staple at Calais, where it was meant to be weighed and exhibited before being traded further. However, they claimed that smelted tin was being exported directly to the Low Countries. Henry had acknowledged their case and prohibited the exportation of all tin, smelted and unsmelted (PROME, 1414 November, item 43). Today he reneged, allowing smelted tin to be exported on payment of the appropriate customs.

  60. For Henry IV’s devotion to the Trinity, see Fears, pp. 196–7.

  61. CCR, p. 218.

  62. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 166–7.

  63. Foedera, ix, pp. 251–2.

  64. Foedera, ix, pp. 252–3.

  65. This is an inference from the Issue Rolls payment dated 24 April 1415. Pugh (Henry V and the Southampton Plot, p. 101) states that he had been released on the 24th but this is simply the date of the warrant to deliver him; it was probably not acted upon the same day. As Henry was not keen to waste money the payment for his upkeep is probably a more reliable indicator.

  66. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 167. This note has been taken by some historians to mean that Scrope absented himself from the council meeting – for example, Bridgette Vale, in ODNB. This is not necessarily the case. The wording suggests only that Scrope had not yet arrived but was expected to arrive soon enough to join in the imminent discussions about relations with the duke of Burgundy. It is therefore evidence that he was late, not that he did not attend.

  67. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 168.

  68. CPR, p. 347.

  69. CCR, p. 214; Foedera, ix, p. 253.

  70. CCR, p. 213.

  71. CPR, p. 327.

  72. CPR, p. 330.

  73. CPR, p. 330.

  74. CCR, p. 208.

  75. For her marriage to Robert Chalons, see Smith (ed.), Expeditions, p. 294. For her acting as a supervisor of the Lancastrian children, see DL 28/1/6 fol. 35r.

  76. He had been at Radolfzell since 17 May.

  77. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 246–7.

  78. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 452, n. 97.

  79. Chronica Maiora, p. 401.

  80. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 255.

  81. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 81, 142n. Hus was removed a few days before 3 June, when John XXIII was taken there.

  82. Foedera, ix, p. 253. Of the other nine, one was called Fydeler (Fiddler) and the others had names unrelated to musical instruments.

  83. CPR, pp. 407–8. In each county, one of these men had already contracted to serve on the campaign in person, so there may have been a local recruitment element to this order as well. See Curry, Agincourt, p. 67.

  84. CPR, p. 336.

  85. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 58–9.

  86. This is based on Thomas More’s wardrobe book for 1413, E 101/406/21 fol. 7v. Whereas more than £80 was spent on Trinity Sunday 1413, expenses on the following Thursday were just £47. A normal day at this time was between £28 and £31.

  87. CPR, p. 329.<
br />
  88. Wylie, Henry V, p. 131. See also ibid., pp. 143–5 for the duplicity of Bergerac and other Gascon towns.

  89. Spinka, Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 139.

  90. Spinka, Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 140.

  June

  1. Details of the crown jewels have been taken from Nicolas, Agincourt, appendices pp. 13–18, and Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 469–76, referring also to Henry’s inventory and the image of the crowns in the plate sections of Fears. Courtenay probably expected that most items would be redeemed on schedule – by Christmas 1416 or by early 1417 at the latest. Most were not. Many items handed out were still in pawn in 1422, when Henry V died; and although the inventories said that the holders could keep them, the council continued to redeem them. Note that the Pallet of Spain is valued at £200 in Nicolas. As there were so many jewels, this can hardly have been made of anything other than gold; and given its weight, the gold alone should have been worth a considerable proportion of the £200. It is suspected that this assigned value is too low but at this distance in time it is impossible to tell; it might have been broken in some way. Given the similarity with the crown and pallet of Spain described by the earl of Cambridge in his confession, the two have been presumed to be the same.

  2. In Nicolas, the Pallet of Spain is pledged to John Hende. However, according to the earl of Cambridge’s confession, it came to him. See Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 172.

  3. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 475–6.

  4. As some of the indentures of service made clear, today was the day when the jewels would be assigned. See for example the indenture of Lord Scrope in Foedera, ix, p. 230.

  5. CPR, p. 346.

  6. CCR, p. 212 (Stone); CPR, p. 331 (Hereford).

  7. For the earlier cases, see 22 January and 6 May.

  8. TTGME, pp. 59, 297. Although Walsingham’s account is probably grossly exaggerated, something does seem to have happened at the time, as a writ was issued to enquire into the misdoings.

  9. CPR, p. 337.

  10. Curry, Agincourt, p. 79.

  11. Monstrelet, i, p. 329.

  12. According to Curry, Agincourt, p. 50, the embassy left Paris on 4 June. One would expect Archbishop Boisratier to have been at the council meeting on the 3rd if he had not already left Paris – so it seems reasonable to conclude that he had already left the city.

  13. For the route taken, see Monstrelet, i, p. 329. For the dates of embarkation, see Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 513.

  14. CPR, p. 325.

  15. For his campaign in 1341 Edward III ordered 130,000 sheaves of arrows for 7,700 bows. See Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p. 94.

  16. Making and fletching 130,000 sheaves of arrows (excluding making the arrowhead) at 30 mins each arrow would be roughly 1,560,000 man-hours. At 3,000 working hours per man per year, this is 520 man-years – or forty years’ work for all thirteen men.

  17. For the ordinances of 1363, see Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p, 93. The original legislation of 1363 had been renewed in the parliaments of 1388 and 1409.

  18. 7 Henry IV (1406), cap. vii.

  19. This statement is based on the order of Edward III to gather 130,000 sheaves of arrows, quoted in Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p. 94, and mentioned above. As there were twenty-four arrows to a standard sheaf, it equates to 3,120,000 arrows.

  20. The account of the trial is taken from Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 163–7.

  21. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, p. 160, n. 2.

  22. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, pp. 159–60.

  23. Foedera, ix, p. 260 (warrant); p. 262 (prorogation).

  24. CPR, pp. 368–9.

  25. CCR, p. 222; CPR, p. 350. These references are methodologically useful in that they reveal the time lapse between a grant and its formal issue. The grant here was specifically made on 5 June; it was drawn up as a close letter on 21 July. It appears on the patent roll dated 5 June, the date of granting. Henry had ratified Dereham’s estate the previous day (CPR, p. 331).

  26. CCR, p. 223 (Northampton); CPR, pp. 338 (Hayne), 386 (Green).

  27. CPR, p. 329. Aristocratic women did not suckle their own infants in the later middle ages.

  28. Foedera, ix, p. 261; CPR, p. 346.

  29. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 167. See also ibid., p. 142.

  30. CPR, p. 330.

  31. CPR, p. 331.

  32. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 59.

  33. S&I, pp. 442–3.

  34. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 449, n. 3.

  35. CCR, p. 280.

  36. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 59.

  37. The articles are in Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 183–201.

  38. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 221.

  39. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 221–2.

  40. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 252.

  41. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 101, dates this event to 10 June on the strength of Thomas Gray of Heton’s letter of 2 August to Henry, which stated that it took place a week before he met Richard, earl of Cambridge, at Conisborough, which was a week before Midsummer’s Day (24 June). Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 516 dates this to 31 May.

  42. CPR, p. 331 (Canterbury); CCR, p. 221 (Tonge).

  43. CCR, p. 221.

  44. CCR, pp. 279–80.

  45. CCR, p. 277. For a good description about corrodies in practice, see Harvey, Living and Dying, chapter six.

  46. CPR, p. 334.

  47. CPR, p. 329.

  48. CCR, p. 214.

  49. This statement is based on the expenditure of the household in Henry IV’s reign. See Given-Wilson, Royal Household, appendix one.

  50. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 476.

  51. Issues, p. 286.

  52. It is likely that he visited several holy shrines in the last days he was in London – he visited St Paul’s and Southwark on the 15th, according to Wylie.

  53. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 494. Note: the date of all the Teutonic envoys’ meetings is approximate.

  54. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

  55. CCR, p. 220 (Victore); CPR, p. 332 (Bury); Wylie, i, p. 482 (Chaucer); CCR, p. 221 (Burgh).

  56. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 248–9.

  57. Fillastre placed it later in his journal, and described the events at Constance of the 15th before those in France of the 8th. See Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 249–51.

  58. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 251.

  59. See Gentien’s account of the attack in Fillastre’s diary, Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 253. For confirmation of John’s whereabouts see Petit, Itinéraires, p. 419.

  60. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 169–70; CPR, p. 333.

  61. CPR, p. 339. The patent letter is dated ‘by the king’ Westminster, 17 June, but the council meeting was probably the same one as the other case of wrongful dismissal, prior to Henry’s departure.

  62. CCR, pp. 220, 222 (Whittington), 221 (Venetians).

  63. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 483–5. Most authors, like Wylie, date the king’s departure to the 16th. Given-Wilson in PROME gives the 15th. Although Gregory’s Chronicle is alone in supplying this date, it is to be preferred since a patent letter ‘by the king’ is dated at Winchester on the 16th (CPR, p. 338). It is unreasonable to suppose that Henry performed these two religious duties and had travelled the 63 miles to Winchester, then dictated a letter which was written up and sealed by a chancery clerk, all on the same day. However, it is possible that Beaufort had taken the king’s instructions to draw up this patent letter in advance (see also n. 71 below). Arundel was still in London on the 19th and 24th, according to Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 170–1.

  64. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

  65. Although these are all dated today at Westminster they were dictated ‘by the king’.

  66. These were William Cheyne, Roger Horton (both King’s Bench) and John Preston and William Lodyngton (Common Bench). See CPR, pp. 332, 335, 3
38, 340.

  67. CPR, pp. 336, 338.

  68. Foedera, ix, pp. 269–70 (Patrington); CPR, p. 347 (Welsh Marches).

  69. Riley (ed.), Memorials, p. 613.

  70. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

  71. It was 63 miles along the old road from London to Winchester – normally a two-day journey at least. It is possible Henry took longer but the patent letter to his brother ‘by the king’ dated there on the 16th suggests otherwise. If Bishop Beaufort had travelled ahead, he may have taken Henry’s instructions to write up this letter and sealed it here while staying at Winchester.

  72. CPR, p. 338.

  73. See the table of towns in TTGME, p. 10.

  74. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 477–8. The matter was resolved when the men of Salisbury receieved an assignment on the wool customs at Southampton in return for their 100 marks.

  75. Chronica Maiora, p. 402n; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 543; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, p. 329; Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 60. They went to London, and thence to Winchester, where they arrived on 30 June and met Henry on 1 July. Their nervous state is suggested by Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 486. Wylie’s statement that they were conducted by Sir John Wiltshire is probably an error, based on reading the French Villequier for Wiltshire; the Issue Roll in May clearly names Sir John Wilcotes.

  76. Foedera, ix, p. 283.

  77. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 502.

  78. For direct reference to Glendower see Thomas Gray’s letter in Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 166. David Howel is mentioned on the same page. Percy and March are mentioned throughout the confessions and letters on pp. 160–73.

  79. Brie (ed.), Brut, i, pp. 75–6.

  80. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 162.

  81. For Mordach’s recapture being a week after his abduction, see Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 101, 107, n. 31. For Ralph Pudsay, see CPR, p. 339.

 

‹ Prev